ALL CREDITS TO GOD ALMIGHTY, NOT NATURE OR EVOLUTION.

SouthSouth1914:


Then you should respect other people’s religion same way you want yours to be respected.

Yes! You have every right to believe what ever you want. I also have right to find whatever you believe to be ridiculous

hakeem4:
this is what brings about advancement. unlike religions with authorities, making claims they know nothing about. How can someone die and come back to life and you are still waiting for him to return again after 2000 years

You're referring to the paedophile right?

Ever8090:
as you believe in history of humans and animals existence predating to 50 million years ago which your guess work comes back to argue with itself soon after a discovery is made and establish as fact, the confusion in this context can't be compared to the believe of resurrection and the second coming of a Messiah.

Did you say guess work?

SyrusdeHansome:



You're referring to the paedophile right?

yeah and Jesus also

hakeem4:
this is what brings about advancement. unlike religions with authorities, making claims they know nothing about. How can someone die and come back to life and you are still waiting for him to return again after 2000 years

the matter weak me

Xbee007:
This prove that human existence on earth is beyond 6000 years old as claimed by the "holy books."

Watch as some people will avoid this thread.

righteousness come and take your sub

How did this news crossed the Atlantic ocean and got to Nigeria. Abeg we already have so much basic troubles we are trying to solve......

fergie001:


SOURCE

One of the bones looks like it was sucked off cooked meat few days back and left outside to be dried by Nigerian type of harmattan.

So really they mean to say it's actually two hundred thousand years old. Not 2 days old or 20days or 200days old dried bone but 200 thousand.

Lmaaooooo!

More recent fossils don't even come closer to being in tact like this.
If they had called it a relic, fine. But 200,000 years old fossil looking in tact like a bone sucked off during Nigerian harmattan.

This is the most hilarious ting I've ever seen.

Such an immature ochestration for whatever reason they know best.

This a-million-year-old-bone-discovered silly tales are looking more like organized dogmatic religion. But it employs people and robs no one. Not too bad a fraud though.

donnie:


Those beings are NOT connected to modern humans, they are not your ancestors. The number or years man has been in earth might be in the tens of thousands (60,000) or even hundreds of thousands (600,000), regardless... but those creatures are from fathers that are not of this world, but are fallen angels.

If you say they are fallen angels and that's their remains, are you then implying "Satan" is dead as he's also a fallen angel?

fergie001:


SOURCE

What d Bleep am i looking at?

Papichulostunne:


What d Bleep am i looking at?

I actually said "Bleep" not Bleep.. Bleep auto censor

albreezy4eva:


If you say they are fallen angels and that's their remains, are you then implying "Satan" is dead as he's also a fallen angel?

I'm not sure you're familiar with the story about how angelic beings took wives of the daughters of men giving birth to strange beings and giants.

This corruption was the reason for the flood of Noah. But then it continued even till this day. The fallen angels lost their bodies after the flood and became evil spirits. Today, bodies controlled by artificial intelligence are being created by men so these spirit beings can inhabit and operate freely on earth.

Where did I say Satan is dead? Neanderthals are the result of this corruption... this mixture. They weren't the fallen angels themselves but are the offspring from mixing with humans. Today every white person has the neanderthal genes in them.

donnie:


I'm not sure you're familiar with the story about how angelic beings took wives of the daughters of men giving birth to strange beings and giants.

This corruption was the reason for the flood of Noah. But then it continued even till this day. The fallen angels lost their bodies after the flood and became evil spirits. Today, bodies controlled by artificial intelligence are being created by men so these spirit beings can inhabit and operate freely on earth.

Where did I say Satan is dead? Neanderthals are the result of this corruption... this mixture. They weren't the fallen angels themselves but are the offspring from mixing with humans. Today every white person has the neanderthal genes in them.

Strange beings and Giants seriously? You seen an evil spirit before? Come on mate

APOSTLECHUMA:
GARDEN OF EDEN WAS IN MIDDLE EAST AND STRETCHED FROM ISRAEL DOWN TO IRAQ. ONE OF THE RIVERS IN THE GARDEN KNOWN AS RIVER EUPHRATES IS STILL IN PRESENT DAY IRAQ.

so where are the flaming swords that guards the enterance as written in the holy bible?

dairykidd:

Where or when did the "holy books" make such claims of 6k years pls

Modified
I have been waiting on ur response for sometime now and nothing yet bros. I can still see ur online. Or u dey research am?

That comes from the people called the Young earth creationists.

I don't know how they did their math, but they seem to have gotten their number by counting the events in the bible and interval between them from Adam, to Noah with the flood to present day and came up with the 6k year.

Not this again

Triquetra:
This are ORCS bones from the Lord of the Rings

Interesting enough this is the origin of a lot of myth.
Such as the elephant skull, being thought to be a Cyclops.

hakeem4:
I do not understand the bolded.

religion makes perfectly rational people do what only insane people can do. Religion does not really bring any advancement

I have been reading along but your atheistic conviction and bias is already making you to type errors.

For your last sentence, you'll need to read about what led to the founding of MODERN science (empirical method) and its advancement.
It doesn't do much good to listen to ONLY one side of the camp.
By the way, over 70% of Nobel Laureates in science are Christians - Religious people

IMAliyu:

That comes from the people called the Young earth creationists.

I don't know how they did their math, but they seem to have gotten their number by counting the events in the bible and interval between them from Adam, to Noah with the flood to present day and came up with the 6k year.

You didn't answer my question.. Again my question is: When or where did the "holy book" make such claims that the earth is 6k years?

Pls don't bother to quote me if u don't have the answer according to xbee007's post

hakeem4:
USA is not a country of faith, same as saying Nigeria is not a country of faith.
saying USA is a christian nation to me is a meaningless statement. The constitution forbids all mention of god in it. let alone of Jesus or Allah or any Hindu god. Its true to say that majority of religious people in America are christians It sounds funny that the 1st amendments contradicts the 1st commandments

You and I know that religion has Hindered the progress of science more than it has helped.

Please back up your claim with sound facts.
I hate it when folks don't cross-check whatever they read from anti-God sites, only to spread such propaganda

IMAliyu:

That comes from the people called the Young earth creationists.

I don't know how they did their math, but they seem to have gotten their number by counting the events in the bible and interval between them from Adam, to Noah with the flood to present day and came up with the 6k year.

I knew I asked you to please read a lot of their literatures so you get acquainted with their arguments. They started with how you described it but many Scientists who happen to be in such camps have found very good evidence to support such arguments and powerful ones that discredit the long age belief.
I would love that you take your time to check their literatures for yourself, as consensus is not always right.

keppler:

I have been reading along but your atheistic conviction and bias is already making you to type errors.

For your last sentence, you'll need to read about what led to the founding of MODERN science (empirical method) and its advancement.
It doesn't do much good to listen to ONLY one side of the camp.
By the way, over 70% of Nobel Laureates in science are Christians - Religious people

Yes scientists are religious people but it doesn’t mean religious brings about development.

Galileo, etc were strong Christians but we saw what the church did to them.


Newton was an alchemist does not mean that all alchemist were scientists also

keppler:

Please back up your claim with sound facts.
I hate it when folks don't cross-check whatever they read from anti-God sites, only to spread such propaganda

just give me when religion helped in terms of development

fergie001:


SOURCE

What about the early angel-human specie that were giant and extraordinary humans. If not that the time of this discovered specie was a bit recent, this would have been the most likely prediction.

dairykidd:


You didn't answer my question.. Again my question is: When or where did the "holy book" make such claims that the earth is 6k years?

Pls don't bother to quote me if u don't have the answer according to xbee007's post

The events in the Bible led people to conclude for a thousand years that earth is really young. This is why so many Christians don't believe in dinosaur and evolution.

hakeem4:


Yes scientists are religious people but it doesn’t mean religious brings about development.

Galileo, etc were strong Christians but we saw what the church did to them.


Newton was an alchemist does not mean that all alchemist were scientists also

Yes scientists are religious people but it doesn’t mean religious brings about development
You are quick to respond when you did not even read what I asked you to read. Else, you wouldn't give this response. Try to read it so that you may stop dishing this wrong impression of religion (Christianity especially)

Galileo, etc were strong Christians but we saw what the church did to them
Who are the etc? Then, make an extensive study of the real Galileo affair so as to have a grasp of what actually happened. He had a correct idea but does not have the scientific backing for his arguments. He was literally challenging the BEST OF SCIENCE of that era - Ptolemic geocentricity which had been accepted for more than a thousand years and has worked well. It was never an issue of science vs religion, but science vs science, and in this case, the church was following the 'BEST OF SCIENCE' of the era which had the best case for it.
It's funny that it was other Christians; Copernicus, Keppler that established Helicentricity with better arguments and evidence which over turned the reigning paradigm; yet, the Church did nothing to them AS AGAINST YOUR CLAIM. (Imagine how ridiculous it do sounds to believers of Big bang when they hear others challenging it, that was how it was during Galileo's time, just that he does not have the required evidence in his case).

Be well informed on a topic and not just read what you WANT to hear.

Newton was an alchemist does not mean that all alchemist were scientists also
You are merely attacking strawman here and trying a redherring. It doesn't change the fact that Christianity was a driving force for modern science and till date, over 70% if Nobel prize winners of science are Christians.

hakeem4:
just give me when religion helped in terms of development

You don't turn the onus on me. You made a claim and I challenged you to cite examples to back up your claim. That is what you should do and not turn it on me

keppler:

I knew I asked you to please read a lot of their literatures so you get acquainted with their arguments. They started with how you described it but many Scientists who happen to be in such camps have found very good evidence to support such arguments and powerful ones that discredit the long age belief.
I would love that you take your time to check their literatures for yourself, as consensus is not always right.

You have any recommendations on where to start?

The small amount I've come across on the web weren't captivating for me.
It's often best to look at the data, then from a conclusion. Than to start at a conclusion and make the data fit that conclusion. Just my thoughts.